How the Music Industry Was Hollowed Out by Streaming Economics
April 24, 2025 · Frisian News
Spotify and Apple Music pay artists pennies per stream while tech giants pocket billions, crushing the middle class of musicians who once lived on album sales and touring. The shift from ownership to rental has destroyed the economic model that sustained working musicians for generations.
A musician in Stockholm released an album last year that reached 5 million streams. She earned 2,500 euros. The same song playing to a sold-out stadium would have paid her label 30,000 euros in the 1990s. Today Spotify takes a cut, Apple Music takes a cut, the label takes its share, and the artist gets what falls through the cracks. This is not an outlier story. It is the standard arrangement that has broken the income of working musicians across Europe and North America.
The streaming model inverted the relationship between artist and listener. When people bought albums, they owned something. Artists earned money on each transaction because the listener made a choice, paid once, and kept the music. Streaming transformed music into a tap you turn on for a monthly fee. The listener now pays the same ten euros whether they play one song or ten thousand songs. The artists share a pool of revenue that shrank steadily as more music uploaded to platforms. A billion streams in 2015 meant something. A billion streams in 2025 means pennies distributed among thousands of artists.
The record labels claim they have no choice. Streaming services, they say, set the rates and artists have no leverage. This is technically true but obscures a real fact: the major labels negotiated those rates and stood to gain from consolidation. Three labels, Universal, Sony, and Warner, control 80 percent of recorded music globally. They licensed their catalogs to Spotify at rates that crushed smaller competitors and independent artists. The big labels also own shares in these platforms. They profit from streaming through multiple channels while mid-tier musicians and songwriters face a hollowed-out economy.
Meanwhile, the platforms grew fat. Spotify's market value exceeded 50 billion euros in 2024. Apple and Amazon use music as a loss leader to sell hardware and keep subscribers locked into their ecosystems. None of these companies employ musicians. They host the content, collect the fees, and let the creators scrap over remainders. The engineer, the session player, the songwriter who does not tour, the classical musician who survived on recording work, the small label owner, the music teacher who cut albums on the side, all watched their income evaporate.
Some musicians returned to older models. Bandcamp lets artists keep 80 percent of revenue. Patreon and direct fan support grew. But these alternatives reach small audiences. The bulk of listeners still find music through Spotify or YouTube, and the economics there remain brutal. The streaming platforms show no sign of increasing payouts. They have consolidated their power and can afford to wait out any artist revolt. The industry did not collapse into this trap by accident. It was built.
In musisinte yn Stockholm joech ferjit jier in album út dat 5 miljoen streams helle. Se fertsjinde 2.500 euro. Itselde nûmer spile yn in útferkocht stadion hie har label yn 'e jierren 90 30.000 euro brocht. Hjoed jouwe Spotify har del, Apple Music jouwe har del, it label jouwe har del, en de artiest krijt wat troch de mazen fan it nettych falt. Dit is gjin útstekstarie. It is de standertskikking dy't it ynkommen fan wurkjende musiki yn Jeropa en Noard-Amerike brike hat.
It streamingmodel draaide de relaasje tusken artiest en hoarrer om. Doe't minsken albums kochten, eagendasten se somthing. Artysten fertsjinnen pening by elk transaksje om't de hoarrer in kar makke, ien kear betelle en de muzyk hild. Streaming feroarje muzyk yn in kran dy't do iepne foar in moanliks tarief. De hoarrer betelt no deselde tsien euro, oft se ien nûmer spile of tsiendûzend nûmers. De artysten diele in ynkomstenput dy't letter wurden naarst mear muzyk op platforms uploadet. In miljard streams yn 2015 betsjutte somthing. In miljard streams yn 2025 betsjutte sienten ferdielen ûnder tûzenen artysten.
De platelabels stelle dat se gjin kar hawwe. Streamingservices, sizzje se, stelle de tarieven en artysten hawwe gjin ynfloed. Dit is technologysk wier mar ferbergje in echte fait: de grutte labels underhandele dy tarieven en profitearren fan konsolidasje. Trije labels, Universal, Sony en Warner, kontrolearje 80 prosint fan registrearre muzyk wrâldwyd. Se licenseerden har katalogi oan Spotify tsjin tarieven dy't lytsere konkurrenten en ûnôfhinklike artysten ferbroezen. De grutte labels eagendasten ek andelen yn dizze platforms. Se wunje mei streaming troch mearfoudige kanalen, wylst middelgrutte musiki en sangskrywers in útholge ekonomy tsjinmoetkaam.
Itstiids groeiden de platforms dik. De merkwearde fan Spotify oergie yn 2024 50 miljard euro. Apple en Amazon brûke muzyk as ferliesliefer om hardware te ferkeapjen en abonnees oan har ekosystemen fêst te hâlden. Gjin fan dizze bedriuwen mei musiki as bydrage. Se hoste de ynhâld, ynne de fergoedingen en litte de skappers om restkes fjochtje. De stim-technikus, de sesjespelder, de sangskrywer dy't net turneart, de klassike musikus dy't fan opnamewurk libje, de lytse labelboas, de muzyklierrer dy't albums makke, alles kiken hoe harren ynkommen ferdwine.
Summe musiki gienen werom nei eltere modellen. Bandcamp lit artysten 80 prosint fan it ynkommen hâlde. Patreon en direkte fanstipe groeiden. Mar dizze alternativen berikke lyts publik. De grutste diel fan de hoarrer fynt muzyk noch altyd fia Spotify of YouTube, en de ekonomy dêr bliuwt brutal. De streamingplatforms jouwt gjin teken om de útkeringen te fergrutsjen. Se hawwe harren macht konsolidearre en kinne it sik feroorlofje om elk artiestsherzet te sitte. De industrie fill net per ûngelok yn dizze fal. It waard boud.
Published April 24, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân